Thought Crimes and the British Gestapo


PDA






MicroBalrog
July 17, 2003, 06:32 PM
The following was given to me by John Pate, the representative of the Self-Defense Network in the UK

Perhaps people will be interested in this (true) tale...

Thought Crimes and the British Gestapo

It all began in the autumn of 1996. The incoming Labour Party
administration had promised legislation to `eradicate' firearms from Great
Britain. As Secretary of my local shooting club I joined thousands of
other law abiding gun owners in the biggest, and what was to be probably
the most peaceful, democratic protest the City of London had ever seen. I
had previously written personally to Mr. Blair (then in opposition) and
several other leading Parliamentary figures on the issue of the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). Most replied with a courteous letter of
acknowledgment stating their (or their party's) position on the matter. Mr
Blair's office did not.

On the day of the march cameras were much in evidence as we walked the two
miles from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square chatting amicably with the London
Bobbies who escorted us along the route. I'll never know how many people
were there, but easily in excess of 30,000 as the square and all approach
roads were completely filled with protesters by the time we arrived, and
yet not a missile was thrown nor a single voice raised in anger. My wife
had just been discharged from hospital and was still in a wheelchair then.
Noticing this the stewards arranged for us (and others) to come to the
front so that we could hear the speeches. Again, cameras seemed to be
everywhere. Afterwards a delegation was chosen to deliver a giant petition
(several boxes containing thousands of signatures) to 10 Downing Street
and my wife was one of those chosen. We stood outside the Prime Minister's
official residence while a veritable battery of photographers did their
work. An official took our names but there was surely nothing sinister in
this. Or was there? Despite the immense amount of photography not one
picture of the demonstration appeared in either local or national press
and neither was it mentioned on TV or radio. Just one newspaper carried a
small, six or seven line, paragraph tucked away in the sports section.

As Secretary of a gun club I had regular dealings with the police on
various matters relating to club issues and on behalf of individual
members. After the London demonstration things began to become suddenly
difficult: calls not returned, paperwork taking longer than usual to be
processed, etc. My wife applied for a firearms certificate (FAC) in her
own right. Background and security checks should have been a mere
formality as she was married to and living with the police "person of
contact" (PoC) for the club she had joined! For some strange reason the
police demanded her/our marriage certificate (the original not a
photocopy) which she duly filed. After five more weeks had passed, during
which time her cheque had been cashed but no FAC was forthcoming, I called
the police. When I asked for an explanation for the delay I was told they
were "waiting for some information from the gun club." The gentleman I
spoke to was somewhat taken aback when I told him that I was the club
secretary concerned and to date no-one had asked me anything. A few days
later my wife's FAC arrived but not the marriage certificate. I called the
police and was told it had been mailed back to us "some time ago,"
although when I asked exactly when nobody could tell me. I told them it
was unbelievably bad practice not to record the sending of legal documents
and would make an official complaint to the Chief Constable's Office. I
was then told I could have a photocopy of their file copy (i.e. a copy of
a copy) but that the original had definitely already been mailed back to
us. The next day an inspector arrived with a folder containing this
alleged photocopy which he left with us. Unfortunately no-one in Police HQ
had realised that we were married in the USA not Britain - this "copy" was
on US Letter not European A4 photocopy paper - it was, in fact, the
original document!

It was about that time we began receiving demands threatening arrest and
imprisonment for large amounts of taxes that we did not owe. This
situation was cleared up after a pro bono attorney looked into our case.
However one day in August 1997 whilst I was at work five police officers
swooped on my home based on "an anonymous tip-off" that we had abducted a
child. The child in question was in fact my fourteen years old daughter
from my first marriage and staying with us by consent of the Family Court.
Not only was she put in terror by the aggressive and confrontational
attitude of the police officers but those officers threatened to arrest
both my wife and my elderly mother (who is bedridden and totally disabled)
for "obstructing" them. Thankfully this situation was resolved by a
telephone call to the Court and the police left empty handed after some
thirty minutes. My wife made a formal complaint about this incident but
was persuaded to drop any further action when visited by a senior police
officer several weeks later.

The next strange thing to happen was when I mailed an empty cartridge belt
to my friend in Pennsylvania. A completely inert item packaged in the
usual way with nothing suspicious about either package or contents. It was
intercepted and held up for over four months while I was obliged to obtain
an export license from the Dept. of Trade. As I was a customs officer
myself many years ago I can confirm that while incoming overseas mail is
monitored it is highly unusual for outgoing mail to be screened unless the
sender or addressee has been identified as a criminal suspect. The export
license itself is free and printed off at home using software provided on
disk at public expense, so there is no question of evading any kind of tax
or duty here, but the fact is my mail was intercepted. On whose orders
though? (affidavit from Mr. Tom News can be supplied).

Matters came to a head with the police unlawfully arresting me on Friday,
August 9th 2002. The following text is taken from my formal statement made
to the Police Complaints Authority earlier this year.

As a legal registered FAC holder, I was taking a replica black powder
musket and accessories to a local gun dealer for disposal on the day I
sold my house. The weapon was padlocked inside an approved gun case, and
hidden from view in the boot of my car, which had electronic central
locking, secured in the approved manner against unauthorised use or theft.

En route to the gun shop I had an urgent call to my attorney's office to
sign a last minute document and I parked my car at the rear of his office
next to a restaurant. When I returned I discovered that the restaurant had
called a wheel clamping firm to clamp my car and the clamper was still at
the scene. When I attempted to remove the gun case from the boot of my car
the clamper tried to seize it. As the registered owner it was legally
incumbent upon me to keep it out of hands of unauthorised persons but, in
order not to inflame the situation any further, I immediately backed off
and made an emergency call to police control.

Some five minutes later Sergeant R. Millican of Southmead Police station
arrived, accompanied by a constable (PC Trevorrow). It was then I realised
I had inadvertently left my FAC at home, so I called my wife who got the
document to the scene within a few minutes as we lived less than three
miles away. Meanwhile I had paid the £50 to free my car and the clamper
was allowed to leave the scene - despite the fact that my vehicle had
obviously been broken into and the clamper had admitted entering the
driver's compartment claiming it had been left unlocked. Locked or
otherwise, this person had no lawful right to enter my vehicle, the police
should have detained him for further questioning. They chose not to.

After inspecting my FAC Sgt. Millican said he was satisfied that I was
legally entitled to possess the gun and praised my co-operative attitude.
Sgt. Millican then asked to search my person and my car and I consented.
PC Trevorrow discovered my medal ribbon and and asked about my military
service. I replied conversationally and mentioned regarding the medal that
I cared little for the conflict in Northern Ireland. PC Trevorrow told me
I shouldn't have said that as it is where his wife comes from. I said that
I had not meant to offend, but PC Trevorrow ignored me and continued
strewing the contents of my glove compartment on the floor. Nothing that
was taken was replaced and no respect whatsoever was shown for my
property. PC Trevorrow found two receipts for rifles my wife and I had
sold to another dealer the previous day with a note from the dealer to say
that the serial numbers did not match the certificates. The licensing
department of Avon and Somerset Constabulary had incorrectly entered the
same serial number for two different rifles (of the same type) on both
mine and my wife's FACs. Was this a clerical error - or an attempt to
incriminate me? During the course of this search both officers noted that
the central locking system of my car had been seriously damaged and an
attempt had be made to remove the CD system.

I was asked to remain at the scene while Sgt. Millican made further
inquiries by radio. As result of this radio call Sgt. Millican told me he
was no longer satisfied that my FAC was valid and an armed police unit
would be summoned to take possession of my musket. On the arrival of this
unit I was taken to the Southmead police car and, out of earshot of the
sergeant, I was formally arrested and cautioned by PC Trevorrow. I was not
allowed to contact anyone or answer my cell phone when my wife was trying
to call me. I was then taken to Southmead police station and held in a
corridor while discussions went on elsewhere. Some thirty minutes later I
was moved to an interview room and, some time later, asked to give my
consent to a search of my home. The inference was clear: either consent to
a search or, wait in a cell while a warrant was sought. Having nothing to
hide I gave my consent and was permitted to drive my car home while the
police followed.

This was the day I sold my house and all our belongings were packed to
leave. The two officers spent almost an hour on what can only be described
as a `fishing trip' where even my wife's underwear in a suitcase was
searched in the hope of finding something incriminating. After seizing my
wife's FAC and two non-functioning early 19th century pistols that had
adorned our hearth the officers left, somewhat sheepishly. No apology was
offered either to myself or my wife.

I immediately contacted Mr. Doug Glaister, Deputy Shooting Manager of the
UK National Rifle Association, who was horrified at the way Avon and
Somerset had quote, "over-stepped the mark." He assured me that I had done
nothing to contravene either the letter or the spirit of current UK
firearms legislation and put me on to his legal team. The very senior
gentleman I spoke to there was not surprised given the fact that he had
just recently quote "wiped the floor" with Avon and Somerset firearms
department in another case of unlawful arrest. I happen to know the person
at the centre of that case as I was a witness for the defence however I
cannot definitely say that matter had any bearing on my treatment. After
confirming Mr. Glaister's view that I was entirely innocent of any
offense, we discussed my personal circumstances. As I was leaving the UK
in 10 days, and had not been formally charged with any crime, he advised
me to write to Avon and Somerset `voluntarily' surrendering both my wife's
FAC and my own. Thereafter to take a holiday out of the force area until
it was time to fly out of Britain as there was a grave danger that Avon
and Somerset Constabulary may re-arrest me on some minor offence (conduct
likely to cause a breach of the peace?) or under the Terrorism Act 2000
(which makes it a criminal offense, for example, to have a list of names
of your elected representatives) in order to avert the very serious
consequences of the formal complaint against them.

To conclude: I had my car damaged and broken into by a person who was
still at the scene when the police arrived in response to my emergency
call. Note that the conduct of the officers changed abruptly after a radio
conversation with person or persons unknown at Avon and Somerset Police
HQ. Despite being the victim I was arrested and held for a total of six
hours while my person and property were searched. My wife, who was not
involved in any way, had her privacy violated. Personal possessions
totaling more than £2000 were improperly impounded by Avon and Somerset
Constabulary. I was the victim first of a criminal vandal and then of
police officers who were at best lax in their duty and possibly guilty of
bigotry against me for serving my country in an unpopular war. Last, but
by far from the least, I was subjected to a campaign of harassment by
person or persons unknown from within the upper echelons of the police
service.

It is obvious to me from the above chain of events that our political
views (i.e. the RKBA as per the original English Bill of Rights 1688 and
enshrined in the US Constitution) have upset person or persons very highly
placed within the UK police and/or UK government. If my wife and I are
forced to return to the UK I believe it will not be long before one or
both of us are deprived of our liberty.

Stuart K Jarman <j3681@hotmail.com>

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought Crimes and the British Gestapo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rrader
July 17, 2003, 11:13 PM
The first thing that comes to mind is that this fellow is much too easily pushed around. A baseball bat or axe handel in the trunk of the car (cricket bat in the boot?) would have gotten the tow-truck driver to back off, and a little practice in telling the police to politely go fu*k off would help also.

CGofMP
July 17, 2003, 11:25 PM
They defeat one socialist 'gentleman' and elect a bunch of others...
Must be a European thing.

Go figure.

http://www.memorableplaces.com/images/eifel.jpg

Gun Grabbers Slogan: Peace In Our Time?

Navy joe
July 17, 2003, 11:29 PM
All over a musket folks. I guess the lesson here is that there is a critical point after which the collective is too powerless to resist the controllers. We're not there yet, but not for lack of some of our public "servants" trying.

What's Standing Wolf have to say upon this matter of great import?

fallingblock
July 18, 2003, 06:47 AM
WORSE than Australia when it comes to treatment of gun owners:rolleyes:

I had to obtain TWO import permits to be allowed to receive 70 unprimed empty .303 cartridges recently...the friend in N.Z. had sent them unsolicited and I didn't even know I was a lawbreaker until the Customs letter turned up. :eek:

My concern is the same as this fellow's...I wonder if that means my name on a list of 'armed & dangerous scofflaws' somewhere :uhoh:

agricola
July 18, 2003, 02:45 PM
oh dear me:

Some thirty minutes later I
was moved to an interview room and, some time later, asked to give my
consent to a search of my home. The inference was clear: either consent to
a search or, wait in a cell while a warrant was sought.

Under s.18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Police do not need your consent for a search of your property if you've already been arrested for an offence and an Inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an offence is on the premises. In addition there are powers under the Firearms Act that can be used to inspect the arrangements made for the storage of weapons held under a s1 licence. There is no issue of consent on the facts given - they would not ask for it.

Having nothing to
hide I gave my consent and was permitted to drive my car home while the
police followed.

If the author actually was under arrest there would be no way that he would be allowed to drive home, never mind "followed by a Police car". Of all of this, this rings the least true (which in itself is an achievement).

Thereafter to take a holiday out of the force area until
it was time to fly out of Britain as there was a grave danger that Avon
and Somerset Constabulary may re-arrest me on some minor offence (conduct
likely to cause a breach of the peace?) or under the Terrorism Act 2000
(which makes it a criminal offense, for example, to have a list of names
of your elected representatives)

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not make it a criminal offence to be in possession of a list of names of MPs, councillors, or anyone else for that matter. There is an offence of being in possession of material likely to be of use to terrorists, but this refers to the content and the manner in which the information was gained. For instance, a list of MPs names would not be covered - but a list of (for example) Unionist MP's home addresses, notes on security at those addresses, police response times and so on might well be if associated with other terrorist material.

"Breach of the Peace" is an archaic but still used piece of common law legislation used when there is a likelyhood of violence. It could not be used in such a situation as described by the author.

Despite being the victim I was arrested and held for a total of six
hours while my person and property were searched.

He cant even remember what he wrote: from time of arrest, he spends thirty minutes in a corridor, then an interview (which from his story seems short) and an hour at his home. This makes for an hour and a half, at most two hours. Four and a half hours travelling time?

In fact, I'd suggest that the Police would be more likely to seize his tinfoil hat rather than the pistols. :rolleyes:

0007
July 18, 2003, 02:59 PM
So I guess the guy just made up the whole story so you could get out your skeptic brush and once again tell us that things are really ok for that (fast dwindling) dispised group known as gun owners in merry old england?
:rolleyes:

agricola
July 18, 2003, 03:02 PM
no, I'm suggesting the story is grossly exaggerated for the reasons listed above.

Thufer
July 18, 2003, 05:15 PM
Sounds like the United States in another 10 years.

rrader
July 18, 2003, 07:01 PM
Under s.18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Police do not need your consent for a search of your property if you've already been arrested for an offence and an Inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect that evidence of an offence is on the premises. In addition there are powers under the Firearms Act that can be used to inspect the arrangements made for the storage of weapons held under a s1 licence. There is no issue of consent on the facts given - they would not ask for it.

More proof, if any was needed, of just what a low and retrograde legal system the UK has. Not even the basics of protection of civil rights are there, sad.

Ryder
July 18, 2003, 09:06 PM
On the day of the march cameras were much in evidence as we walked the two miles...

I didn't know they used "miles" there.

I've never been absolutely positive that the american indians weren't really onto something by refusing to let their pictures to be taken at the risk of having their souls stolen.

agricola
July 19, 2003, 07:06 AM
rrader,

how can the UK's legal system be "retrograde" if you idealize the old UK system (via the US constitution)? honestly, please learn some new words.

rrader
July 19, 2003, 08:23 AM
how can the UK's legal system be "retrograde" if you idealize the old UK system (via the US constitution)? honestly, please learn some new words

"Idealize" the British System? In case you missed it there was a revolution fought to rid ourselves of the low and retrograde British Legal system.

As for for learning new words, perhaps you could explain why you bleat on endlessly about Martin having shot one the the thugs who burglarized his home "in the back as he ran away." You haven't evaluated any blood splatter evidence that indicates the thug was running away. The most that can be said is that Martin shot in the dark after waiting and trying his best to identify the intruders. How sheep-like of you to bleat the assumption that it was an ambush killing.

Truthfully, You don't own any firearms or have any experience with them. You merely bleat your biased and ignorant nonsense about a shooting you don't have the experience or basic knowledge to evaluate. Or do you have some special intelligence background, in the proud British tradition of Philby, Burgess, and McLean perhaps, which affords you special knowledge of the case?


Baah Baaah, Martin shot them in the Baaack, Bah Baaah...

agricola
July 19, 2003, 09:04 AM
lol

rrader, the evidence was presented at Martin's trial, in which, by the "low and retrograde method" of having twelve of his peers hear all the evidence and determine him guilty of murder in light of that evidence.

oh, and do you know of William Blackstone? Maybe you should read how the framers consulted Blackstone, and the 1688 BoR, rather than quoting yourself.

But, i dont own a gun, so my intellect is clearly defective. :rolleyes:

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 09:20 AM
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not make it a criminal offence to be in possession of a list of names of MPs, councillors, or anyone else for that matter. There is an offence of being in possession of material likely to be of use to terrorists, but this refers to the content and the manner in which the information was gained. For instance, a list of MPs names would not be covered - but a list of (for example) Unionist MP's home addresses, notes on security at those addresses, police response times and so on might well be if associated with other terrorist material.


And that's fine with you?:uhoh:

agricola
July 19, 2003, 10:33 AM
yes - it satisfies, having an acceptable level of vigilance, without descending into blowing people up without trial, internment and so on.

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 10:36 AM
Let me give you an example:

A few days before 9/11 I downloaded an aircraft operations manual. Needless to say, my friend was totally freaked out when he hear of it 9/20.
(true story)
Am I a terrorist?

Is possession of The Anarchist Cookbook 4.14 a crime under that act?

agricola
July 19, 2003, 10:44 AM
microbalrog,

by itself, no. However would you to be in possession of that, materials to make a bomb and/or plans for its deployment then you would be.

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 10:50 AM
by itself, no. However would you to be in possession of that, materials to make a bomb and/or plans for its deployment then you would be

I'm currently in possession of

a)Aforementioned aircraft manual
b)Anarchist cookbook
c)material to make a bomb (common household stuff)

Am I a terrorist?

agricola
July 19, 2003, 12:02 PM
NO

do you intend to use that information/material for violence?

if so, yes.

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 12:04 PM
Do I understand correctly that under the Terrorism Act I could be imprisoned?

agricola
July 19, 2003, 12:06 PM
what part of "NO" do you misunderstand?

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 12:16 PM
There is an offence of being in possession of material likely to be of use to terrorists,

I didn't write it. You did.

agricola
July 19, 2003, 12:56 PM
read the rest of the quote, dont take it out of context.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought Crimes and the British Gestapo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!